DOCSLIB.ORG

Choctawhatchee Bay Estuary Program Regular Meeting Agenda

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Choctawhatchee Bay Estuary Program Regular Meeting Agenda Choctawhatchee Bay Estuary Coalition Agenda for April 29, 2021 Regular Meeting Freeport Business Complex, Unit 118 842 State Highway 20 East, Freeport, Florida 9:30 a.m., Central Time Virtual: https://myokaloosa.zoom.us/j/93573047082?pwd=bkluczBSVUp3cUhRWVM4YXIvR2FVdz09 Meeting I.D.: 935 7304 7082 Passcode: 334406 Telephone: 877-853-5247 1. Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance To the Flag 2. Directors’ Minute 3. Public Comment 4. Approval of CBEC Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2021(action required) pages 2—7 5. FSU Grant Funded Research Proposal Collaborative Support(action required)pages 8 — 10 6. FLRACEP Project Collaborative Support(action required) pages 11 — 12 7. Draft FY 2022 Program Budget(information only) pages 13 — 37 8. Guest presentation – FLRACEP – Panhandle Estuary Systems project (Dr. Matt Deitch, UF) 9. Program Updates - Brian L. Underwood 9.1 Draft Scope of Work for Professional Services / CCMP development (pages 38—40) 9.2 Draft CCMP Action Plan Goals and Objectives Revisions (pages 41 — 47) 9.3 Grant Application Partnering 9.4 State Legislative Appropriations Update, House Bill 3631 9.5 Representation for future Citizens’ Advisory Committee for Management Conference 9.6 CBEC Homepage website 9.7 Next CBEC Board Meeting, Wednesday, July 14th, 9:30 a.m., Central Time, Okaloosa County 9.8 Walton County RESTORE Grants update (Melinda Gates) (page 54) 9.9 Okaloosa County RESTORE Grants update (Jane Evans) (page 55) 9.10 Education and Outreach (Chelsea Conley) (page 56) th 9.11 Kayaking Trip at conclusion of October 13 Board Meeting (Chelsea Conley) 10. Board Member Comments 11. Adjourn 1 CHOCTAWHATCHEE BAY ESTUARY COALITION BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM DATE: April 29, 2021 SUBJECT: Approval of CBEC Meeting Minutes from January 28, 2021 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Action to consider approval of minutes from the CBEC regular meeting of January 28, 2021. OPTIONS: Approve, Disapprove, or Approve as Amended 2 Choctawhatchee Bay Estuary Coalition January 28, 2021 - Regular Meeting 9:30 a.m., Central Time Washington County Commission Board Room, 1331 South Boulevard Chipley, Florida 32428 Virtual: https://myokaloosa.zoom.us/j/93903964871?pwd=bXJpNElhSDhpWWtLcEdYSWxoZ0pzZz09 MEETING MINUTES Board Members Present or Attending Remotely: Mel Ponder - Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners Jeff Good– Holmes County Board of County Commissioners Alan Bush – Washington County Board of County Commissioners Alison McDowell - Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance (remote participant) Lisa Harris – Choctawhatchee, Pea, and Yellow Rivers Watershed Management Authority 1. Call to Order Alan Bush called the meeting to order, and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Directors’ Minute Brian Underwood welcomed participants to the Board meeting, and thanked the Washington County officials for hosting the January 28th CBEC Board meeting. 3. Public Comment Public comment was solicited, from both virtual and in-person attendees. No public comment was received. 4. Introduce new CBEC Board Members Brian introduced Commissioner Jeff Good, representing Holmes County, Commissioner Mel Ponder, representing Okaloosa County, and Commissioner William “Boots” McCormick, representing Walton County, as new Board members of the Choctawhatchee Bay Estuary Coalition. 3 Minutes for January 28, 2021 CBEC Regular Meeting – Page 2 5. Nomination and Election of Officers of the CBEC Board for 2021 Brian Underwood asked for nominations for the position of Chair of the Choctawhatchee Bay Estuary Coalition. Commissioner Mel Ponder nominated Commissioner Alan Bush for the position. Second by: Lisa Harris *Motion carried unanimously Brian Underwood asked for nominations for the position of Vice-Chair of the Choctawhatchee Bay Estuary Coalition. Commissioner Jeff Good nominated Commissioner Mel Ponder for the position. Second by: Commissioner Bush *Motion carried unanimously 6. Approval of Meetings Minutes of October 22, 2020 The minutes of the CBEC regular meeting of October 22, 2020 were presented for review and discussion. A motion was made by Alison McDowell to approve the CBEC meeting minutes from October 22nd. Second by: Commissioner Good *Motion carried unanimously 7. Proposed 2021 CBEC Board of Directors Meeting Schedule Brian Underwood referred to the proposed meeting schedule, including Board meeting dates of April 29th, July 15th, and October 14th. Chairman Bush recommended changing the dates of the July and October meetings to correspond to Wednesday mornings, due to the Washington County Board of County Commissioner meetings occurring on Thursday mornings. Following discussion, an amended schedule was described, including Board meeting dates on April 29th, July 14th, and October 13th. A motion was made by Lisa Harris to adopt the schedule for Board meetings during 2021, as amended. Second by: Commissioner Ponder *Motion carried unanimously 8. Education and Outreach Committee Appointments Brian Underwood referred to the list of recommended Education and Outreach Committee participants, as compiled by Chelsea Conley. Brian provided a description of the need for the Committee to the Board members. Alison McDowell indicated the list of participants is very representative of individuals who would be beneficial for providing input to the Committee. She commended Chelsea for compiling the participant list. A motion was made by Alison McDowell to appoint the individuals referenced to the Coalition’s Education and Outreach Committee. Second by: Commissioner Good *Motion carried unanimously 4 Minutes for January 28, 2021 CBEC Regular Meeting – Page 3 9. Compensation for Executive Director Brian Underwood referred to the Bylaws of Choctawhatchee Bay Estuary Coalition provision which provides for the Coalition Board to conduct the performance review of the Executive Director annually and establish compensation. Brian referred the Board members to the summary of major accomplishments of the Estuary Program over the past year, as included in their agenda packets. Brian also indicated that the RESTORE Act financial assistance award from Pot 3 to Okaloosa County allocates $92,000 annually for the salary of the Executive Director. This is a provision of the subrecipient agreement with the Gulf Consortium. Brian stated that the agenda item may be deferred to the April Board meeting to provide for additional reflection by the Board. Board Attorney Greg Stewart indicated that the interlocal agreement for the Estuary Coalition contemplates another evaluation in the spring, to be conducted by the Board Chair. He recom- mended that the subject of compensation be taken up as part of the budget process for next year. Data concerning the revenue sources and program funding will be assembled. Background information and data will be provided, and will support Chairman Bush in conducting an annual evaluation. In consideration of the additional information to be assembled and provided, Agenda Item 9. was continued until the April 29th Board meeting. 10. Guest Presentation The AmeriCorps of Northwest Florida Environmental Stewards, attended by Rachel Gwin of the Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance, provided a presentation describing their role in supporting habitat and water quality protection within Choctawhatchee Bay. The Board thanked the AmeriCorps group for their attendance and presentation. 11. Program Updates 11.1 Brian Underwood provided a visual presentation to summarize key Program accomplishments and initiatives during 2020, and described anticipated outcomes for 2021. A key objective for 2021 includes securing consultant services for drafting of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, which is contingent upon award of RESTORE Pot 1 funds to Okaloosa County by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Following Mr. Underwood’s presentation, Commissioner Bush asked if Chelsea and Brian have plans to attend any of the other Estuary Coalition meetings, like those of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program? Mr. Underwood indicated that he and Chelsea join the Pensacola and Perdido Bay Estuary Program virtual Technical Committee and Policy Board meetings, and that participation is beneficial. He will also plan to join the virtual Board meetings of the National Estuary Program. 5 Minutes for January 28, 2021 CBEC Regular Meeting – Page 4 Commissioner Bush encouraged virtual participation as well, to understand what has worked for other estuary programs. Commissioner Bush asked where to direct interested parties regarding questions about the Estuary Program. Brian mentioned that the Estuary Program has an office on Okaloosa Island, and recommended the Coalition Board website. A brochure for the Estuary Program is also available. Chelsea Conley followed up stating that she sends out virtual newsletters, can receive email to address any questions, and can set up meetings to discuss. Social media accounts are also in place. Chelsea is also interested in contacting officials with the local schools to provide educational information concerning the estuaries. Lisa Harris indicated that we are welcome to contact her for possible assistance and information regarding our ongoing watershed management planning. Brian Underwood asked the Board for provision of contact information for any additional stakeholders, as may be available, to expand Program outreach. Chelsea Conley mentioned that if anyone has information concerning upcoming public events in the watershed, the Estuary Program can get involved through participation. Lisa Harris referenced an upcoming waterways exhibit by the Smithsonian
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WALTON COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE: CHAPTER 4 | Resource Protection Standards Revised September 10, 2019 Page 2 of 55
    Revised September 10, 2019 Page 1 of 55 CHAPTER IV. RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS 4.00.00. OVERALL PURPOSE AND INTENT The purpose of this chapter is to protect, conserve and enhance Walton County's natural and historical features. It is the intent of the County to enhance resource protection by utilizing development management techniques to control potential negative impacts from development and redevelopment on the resources addressed herein. Specifically, it is the intent of the County to limit the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon historic sites, wetlands, coastal dune lakes, coastal dune lines, water quality, water quantity, wildlife habitats, living marine resources, or other natural resources through the use of site design techniques, such as clustering, elevation on pilings, setbacks, and buffering. The intent of this policy is to avoid such impact and to permit mitigation of impacts only as a last resort. 4.00.01. Permits Required. A. Local Development Order. Unless exempt under Section 1.15.00, a development order is required for all development or redevelopment of real property within the County. As a part of the application process defined in Chapter 1 of this Code, a landowner or developer must apply the provisions of this chapter before any other design work is done for any proposed land development. Application of the provisions of this chapter will divide a proposed development site into zones or areas that may be developed with minimal regulation, zones that may be developed under more stringent regulation and zones that must generally be left free of development activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 COLA
    Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 COL Application Part 2 — FSAR SUBSECTION 2.4.1: HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING ..................................................................2.4.1-1 2.4.1 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION ............................................................2.4.1-1 2.4.1.1 Site and Facilities .....................................................................2.4.1-1 2.4.1.2 Hydrosphere .............................................................................2.4.1-3 2.4.1.3 References .............................................................................2.4.1-12 2.4.1-i Revision 6 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 COL Application Part 2 — FSAR SUBSECTION 2.4.1 LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.4.1-201 East Miami-Dade County Drainage Subbasin Areas and Outfall Structures 2.4.1-202 Summary of Data Records for Gage Stations at S-197, S-20, S-21A, and S-21 Flow Control Structures 2.4.1-203 Monthly Mean Flows at the Canal C-111 Structure S-197 2.4.1-204 Monthly Mean Water Level at the Canal C-111 Structure S-197 (Headwater) 2.4.1-205 Monthly Mean Flows in the Canal L-31E at Structure S-20 2.4.1-206 Monthly Mean Water Levels in the Canal L-31E at Structure S-20 (Headwaters) 2.4.1-207 Monthly Mean Flows in the Princeton Canal at Structure S-21A 2.4.1-208 Monthly Mean Water Levels in the Princeton Canal at Structure S-21A (Headwaters) 2.4.1-209 Monthly Mean Flows in the Black Creek Canal at Structure S-21 2.4.1-210 Monthly Mean Water Levels in the Black Creek Canal at Structure S-21 2.4.1-211 NOAA
    [Show full text]
  • Movements, Fishery Interactions, and Unusual Mortalities of Bottlenose Dolphins
    MOVEMENTS, FISHERY INTERACTIONS, AND UNUSUAL MORTALITIES OF BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS by STEVE F. SHIPPEE B.S. University of West Florida, 1983 Professional Certificate in Natural Resource Management, University of California San Diego, 2001 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Biology in the College of Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Spring Term 2014 Major Professor: Graham A.J. Worthy © 2014 Steve F. Shippee ii ABSTRACT Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) inhabit coastal and estuarine habitats across the globe. Well-studied dolphin communities thrive in some peninsular Florida bays, but less is known about dolphins in the Florida panhandle where coastal development, storms, algal blooms, fishery interactions, and catastrophic pollution have severely impacted their populations. Dolphins can react to disturbance and environmental stressors by modifying their movements and habitat use, which may put them in jeopardy of conflict with humans. Fishery interaction (FI) plays an increasing role in contributing to dolphin mortalities. I investigated dolphin movements, habitat use, residency patterns, and frequency of FI with sport fishing. Dolphins were tracked using radio tags and archival data loggers to determine fine-scale swimming, daily travels, and foraging activity. Dolphin abundance, site fidelity, ranging, stranding mortality, and community structure was characterized at Choctawhatchee and Pensacola Bays in the Florida Panhandle via small boat surveying and photo-identification. Reported increases in dolphin interactions with sport anglers were assessed at deep sea reefs and coastal fishing piers near Destin, FL and Orange Beach, AL. Results from these studies yield insights into the ranging and foraging patterns of bottlenose dolphins, and increase our knowledge of them in the northern Gulf of Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • Gulf of Mexico Estuary Program Restoration Council (EPA RESTORE 003 008 Cat1)
    Gulf Coast Gulf-wide Foundational Investment Ecosystem Gulf of Mexico Estuary Program Restoration Council (EPA_RESTORE_003_008_Cat1) Project Name: Gulf of Mexico Estuary Program – Planning Cost: Category 1: $2,200,000 Responsible Council Member: Environmental Protection Agency Partnering Council Member: State of Florida Project Details: This project proposes to develop and stand-up a place-based estuary program encompassing one or more of the following bays in Florida’s northwest panhandle region: Perdido Bay, Pensacola Bay, Escambia Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay, St. Andrews Bay and Apalachicola Bay. Activities: The key components of the project include establishing the host organization and hiring of key staff, developing Management and Technical committees, determining stressors and then developing and approving a Comprehensive Plan. Although this Estuary Program would be modeled after the structure and operation of National Estuary Programs (NEP) it would not be a designated NEP. This project would serve as a pilot project for the Council to consider expanding Gulf-wide when future funds become available. Environmental Benefits: If the estuary program being planned by this activity were implemented in the future, projects undertaken would directly support goals and outcomes focusing on restoring water quality, while also addressing restoration and conservation of habitat, replenishing and protecting living coastal and marine resources, enhancing community resilience and revitalizing the coastal economy. Specific actions would likely include,
    [Show full text]
  • Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1
    Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1 Edited by Laura A. Yarbro and Paul R. Carlson Jr. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute St. Petersburg, Florida March 2011 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Table of Contents Authors, Contributors, and SIMM Team Members .................................................................. 3 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 31 How this report was put together ........................................................................................... 36 Chapter Reports ...................................................................................................................... 41 Perdido Bay ........................................................................................................................... 41 Pensacola Bay .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Everglades Ecosystem: Refuge and Resource
    FIU Law Review Volume 9 Number 2 Article 7 Spring 2014 The Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Everglades Ecosystem: Refuge and Resource Allison M. Dussias New England Law│Boston Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview Part of the Other Law Commons Online ISSN: 2643-7759 Recommended Citation Allison M. Dussias, The Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Everglades Ecosystem: Refuge and Resource, 9 FIU L. Rev. 227 (2014). DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.9.2.7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Law Review by an authorized editor of eCollections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DUSSIAS_PUBLISHER (DO NOT DELETE) 10/16/2014 2:41 PM The Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Everglades Ecosystem: Refuge and Resource Allison M. Dussias* Our elders believe that the health of the Tribe and our members directly relates to the health of our ecosystem. We focus on managing our lands within our reservation boundaries; we also watch the land and water that surrounds this boundary because our history is not limited to the lines on current day maps.1 What we choose to protect helps define us as a people.2 In the nineteenth century, the ancestors of the Seminole Tribe of Florida (the “Tribe”) were driven by the scorched earth policies of the American military into the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp of South Florida.3 Never surrendering, they took refuge in remote areas that most Americans regarded as uninhabitable,
    [Show full text]
  • Choctawhatchee Bay
    Choctawhatchee Bay By Barbara Ruth1 and Lawrence R. Handley 2 Background channel opened in 1929 to provide a permanent pass through a previously intermittent opening. The bay also opens to The Choctawhatchee River and Bay system historically the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) in the east and to has supported a rich and diverse ecology that provides Santa Rosa Sound and the GIWW in the west. (The GIWW is substantial economic and quality-of-life benefits to residents regularly maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.) of northwest Florida (Northwest Florida Water Management Pensacola Pass is separated from the west side of the bay by District, 1996). The Choctawhatchee Bay area has become an 84-km (52-mi) portion of the GIWW that was dredged a highly desired area for relocation for many people: the initially in the 1940s (Northwest Florida Water Management perceived overdevelopment in southern Florida has led many District, 1996). Choctawhatchee Bay is a stratified system to look for less highly developed areas. Although the area has with low tidal energy, limited flushing (Blaylock, 1983; no major industry, urban and suburban development, along Livingston, 1986), and a halocline (noticeable changes in with businesses that support Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) salt concentrations between the surface waters and lower activities and an extensive retirement community, is creating waters) (Blaylock, 1983; Livingston, 1986). The bay’s main freshwater influence is the Choctawhatchee River, which impacts on the ecosystem through additional stormwater 3 3 runoff, resource utilization, and similar pressures that are has a rate of 243 m /s (8,580 ft /s) (Northwest Florida Water caused by development.
    [Show full text]
  • Intracoastal Waterway West Bay to Santa Rosa Sound
    BookletChart™ Intracoastal Waterway – West Bay to Santa Rosa Sound NOAA Chart 11385 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Published by the midchannel) from Buoy CB to the bridge; thence 9.9 feet through North Channel to the bay. The channel S of the bridge is subject to frequent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration changes and shoals between dredgings. Buoys are shifted to mark best National Ocean Service water. The channel is marked by lights, buoys, and daybeacons. Office of Coast Survey Choctawhatchee Bay. Depths in the bay decrease gradually from W to E with 18 to 43 feet in the W two-thirds, except near the shores, and 8 to www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov 16 feet in the E third. 888-990-NOAA Choctawhatchee River. The mouth of Choctawhatchee River is shallow, and boats enter through Cypress River. Cypress River entrance, marked What are Nautical Charts? by a light, has a depth of 6 feet. Black Creek, with depths of 8 feet inside, but bars of about 1-foot depth blocking the entrance, leads to the Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show village of Black Creek. Berths, gasoline, a launching ramp, water, ice, water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much and marine supplies are available at a small fish camp on the W bank of more. The information is shown in a way that promotes safe and the creek 1.6 miles above its mouth. efficient navigation. Chart carriage is mandatory on the commercial A channel leads from Choctawhatchee Bay to a turning basin at the head ships that carry America’s commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Andrew Bay
    St. Andrew Bay By Michael S. Brim1 and Lawrence R. Handley2 Background St. Andrew Bay is unique because of its wealth of biological diversity. Keppner (2002) documented the diversity St. Andrew Bay has a watershed of approximately associated with the bay and compared it with surveys of 297,576 ha (735,300 acres, or 1,149 mi2) (Beck and others, Indian River Lagoon, Fla., which has been touted as the most 2000) (fig. 1). The bay is almost entirely within Bay County, biologically diverse estuary in North America. His report an area of over 2,590 km2 (1,000 mi2), which has a resident documents 2,913 species of plants and animals associated with population of more than 148,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002). St. Andrew Bay, nearly 400 more species than found in Panama City is the largest of seven municipalities surrounding the lagoon. the bay. Much of the county, however, is unincorporated land The bay is, however, a fragile ecosystem. Because traditionally supporting silviculture. of its high-salinity waters, the depths of the bay, the lack The primary industries in Bay County are tourism and the of significant freshwater inflow from land drainage, and military, with Tyndall Air Force Base playing a dominant role the minimal tidal regime, the bay is highly susceptible to in the community. The U.S. Navy’s Coastal Systems Station becoming polluted or contaminated. Chemicals and nutrients and the U.S. Coast Guard also share the bay’s shoreline. are not readily flushed from this bay, and the nature of the Most tourist activity occurs on Panama City Beach or upon deep sediments (rich in fine clays, silt, and organic carbon) bay waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Tursiops Truncatus
    19th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals Tampa, FL, 27 November – 02 December 2011 (1) NOAA Fisheries Pascagoula Laboratory, 3209 Frederic Street, Pascagoula, marked/known, 45% (47/105) were unmarked, and 5% (5/105) were Mississippi, 39567, USA marked/unknown. The majority of dolphins with >3 sightings (82%) (2) NOAA Fisheries Beaufort Laboratory, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, North Carolina, 28516, USA died between the most extreme points of their home range. Dolphins (3) Mote Marine Laboratory, 1600 Ken Thompson Parkway, Sarasota, Florida, in the southern community have not been observed in the Atlantic 34236, USA Ocean and no evidence exists of dispersal to the northern or Mosquito Corresponding author: [email protected] Lagoon communities. Of 182 resident dolphins in this community encountered 2,734 times, sighting intervals were not normally For management purposes, NOAA Fisheries currently defines 32 distributed with most dolphins resighted in < 100 days. Based on the stocks of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) within bays, 99% resighting frequency interval (390 d), we predicted 35 sounds, and estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico; however, for the adult/juveniles to have died within the study area and period. majority of stocks little data are available. Bottlenose dolphins Fourteen of the predicted dolphins were recovered dead and 12 utilizing Choctawhatchee Bay in the Florida panhandle are of carcasses too decomposed to identify were also recovered. After particular concern due to potential impacts of recent Unusual applying the marked/unmarked ratio (62:38) for live non-calf Mortality Events. NOAA Fisheries estimated abundance of dolphins to the decomposed carcasses, we predicted seven dolphins Choctawhatchee Bay dolphins (179 residents; 232 residents plus were potentially marked, thus the remaining 14 of the predicted 35 transients) from surveys conducted in summer 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inventory and Study, Florida / J
    <-\^ C5 5.13 ; N^FS -3L'f NOAA TR NMFS CIRC-368 NOAA Technical Report NMFS CIRC-368 M,otc ^ °v U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration \ :r National Marine Fisheries Service Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inventory and Study, Florida: Phase I, Area Description J. KNEELAND McNULTY, WILLIAM N. LINDALL, JR., AND JAMES E. SYKES SEATTLE, WA November 1972 NOAA TECHNICAL REPORTS National Marine Fisheries Service, Circulars The major responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are to monitor and assess the abundance and geographic distribution of fishery resources, to understand and predict fluctuations in the quan- tity and distribution of these resources, and to establish levels for optimum use of the resources. NMFS is also charged with the development and implementation of policies for managing national fishing grounds, develop- ment and enforcement of domestic fisheries regulations, surveillance of foreign fishing off United States coastal waters, and the development and enforcement of international fishery agreements and policies. NMFS also assists the fishi. g industry through marketing service and economic analysis programs, and mortgage insurance and vessel construction subsidies. It collects, analyses, and publishes statistics on various phases of the industry. The NOAA Technical Report NMFS CIRC series continues a series that has been in existence since 1941. The Circulars are technical publications of general interest intended to aid conservation and management. Publica- tions that review in considerable detail and at a high technical level certain broad areas of research appear in this series. Technical papers originating in economics studies and from management investigations appear in the Circular series.
    [Show full text]
  • BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN (Tursiops Truncatus Truncatus) Choctawhatchee Bay Stock
    December 2012 BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN (Tursiops truncatus truncatus) Choctawhatchee Bay Stock NOTE – NMFS is in the process of writing individual stock assessment reports for each of the 32 bay, sound and estuary stocks of bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico. Until this effort is completed and 32 individual reports are available, some of the basic information presented in this report will also be included in the report: “Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound and Estuary Stocks”. STOCK DEFINITION AND GEOGRAPHIC RANGE Bottlenose dolphins are distributed throughout the bays, sounds and estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico (Mullin 1988). Long-term (year-round, multi-year) residency by at least some individuals has been reported from nearly every site where photographic identification (photo-ID) or tagging studies have been conducted in the Gulf of Mexico (e.g., Irvine and Wells 1972; Shane 1977; Gruber 1981; Irvine et al. 1981; Wells 1986a; Wells et al. 1987; Scott et al. 1990; Shane 1990; Wells 1991; Bräger 1993; Bräger et al. 1994; Fertl 1994; Wells et al. 1996a,b; Wells et al. 1997; Weller 1998; Maze and Würsig 1999; Lynn and Würsig 2002; Wells 2003; Hubard et al. 2004; Irwin and Würsig 2004; Shane 2004; Balmer et al. 2008; Urian et al. 2009). In many cases, residents predominantly use the bay, sound or estuary waters, with limited movements through passes to the Gulf of Mexico (Shane 1977; Shane 1990; Gruber 1981; Irvine et al. 1981; Shane 1990; Maze and Würsig 1999; Lynn and Würsig 2002; Fazioli et al. 2006). Early studies indicating year-round residency to bays in both the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico led to the delineation of 33 bay, sound and estuary stocks, including Choctawhatchee Bay, with the first stock assessment reports in 1995.
    [Show full text]